The discussion around freedom of speech versus hate speech in India has become increasingly relevant lately. The recent controversy involving India's Got Latent, a well-known reality show, has once again highlighted this issue. The criticism directed at certain comedic acts on the show has ignited conversations about the boundaries of free speech and whether the proposed Broadcasting Regulation Bill is an effort to stifle creative expression under the pretext of combating hate speech. This article delves into the legal framework that governs free speech and hate speech in India, as well as how the ongoing controversy is being used to tighten content regulations.

Legal Framework: Balancing Freedom and Restrictions Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, but this right is not without limits. Reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(2) include constraints related to public order, decency, morality, and incitement to an offense, among others. The laws regarding hate speech in India mainly stem from Sections 153A, 295A, and 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which make it illegal to promote enmity, create religious discord, or incite violence through speech.

In the case of Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that hate speech should only be restricted when it incites violence or disrupts public order. Likewise, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Court invalidated Section 66A of the IT Act, emphasizing that merely "offensive" speech should not be criminalized unless it results in actual harm.

On the international stage, India is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which supports free speech while allowing for restrictions on hate speech as per Articles 19 and 20. The balance between free expression and its reasonable limitations is an evolving issue that necessitates careful judicial consideration and policy adjustments.

The India's Got Latent Controversy: Satire or Hate Speech?

The latest drama with India's Got Latent stems from some performances supposedly ridiculing religious violence, political views, and bigotry. Critics say it was too much, bordering on hate speech, and called for greater censorship. This group was opposed by other comedians and content creators who argued that satire is an essential part of being able to voice one's opinion.

This incident has renewed interest in the Broadcasting Regulation Bill, which Parliament hopes to use to control what can be said on television or over the internet. If the bill is eventually made law it seems likely to require censoring of materials before they are released, making it more difficult for artists, comedians and other performers to voice dissent or sarcasm without facing legal action.
The Push for the Broadcasting Regulation Bill: A Threat to Free Speech?

The Broadcasting Regulation Bill intends to manage digital content using the same harsh methods as with conventional media – language censorship. Proponents believe the bill is crucial in fighting the spread of disinformation, hate speech, or anything that could jeopardize the public order. Critics, on the other hand, believe that this could result in far-reaching government dominion that undermines creativity and journalistic freedom.

The issue is that this bill, along with other legislation that seeks to collate and control cyberspace, could elicit an unintended "chilling effect" - a scenario in which producers preemptively limit their own work due to anxiety over potential legal ramifications. Furthermore, the vagueness surrounding what is considered "offensive" has the potential to be utilized to stifle opposition and critique. This in especially in a democratic context where there is supposed to be freedom to question the government as a central element.

For example, M.F. Husain's court cases over his art and stand-up comedian Munawar Faruqui being arrested for supposedly insulting religion are alarming signs of growing intolerance towards satire or critique. If the bill is not carefully drafted then, it is clear that there will be further authoritarian control over public discourse.

Conclusion: Where Do We Draw the Line?
The Indian controversy surrounding the show India's Got Talent centers on the balancing act of free speech versus hate speech. Although speech that promotes violence or hate must be restrained, the use of such controversies as a reason to impose vague and overly broad restrictions on content creators also undermines freedom of expression.

A more sophisticated solution is required—one that allows for true hate speech to be differentiated from legitimate satirical or scathing commentary. India needs less regulation, not more, and a greater focus on judicial interpretations of the law along with self-regulatory options that do not mask order as the control of free speech. How the Indian legislators decide to conceal or reveal their political biases will determine how much value they give to the creative future of India.

References:

1. Indian Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) - Available at: https://www.indiankanoon.org
2. Indian Penal Code, Sections 153A, 295A, and 505 - Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in
3. Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014) 11 SCC 477 - Supreme Court Judgment
4. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 - Supreme Court Judgment
5. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Articles 19 & 20 - Available at: https://www.ohchr.org
6. Case of M.F. Husain and Artistic Freedom in India - Analysis at: https://www.thehindu.com
7. Munawar Faruqui's Arrest and the Free Speech Debate - Report at: https://www.bbc.com
8. Proposed Broadcasting Regulation Bill - Government Draft Policy, Available at: https://www.mib.gov.in